Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35384251›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.)2022

Comparative effectiveness of generic nifedipine versus Adalat long-acting nifedipine for hypertension treatment: A multi-institutional cohort study.

Ying-Chang Tung, Chia-Pin Lin, Fu-Chih Hsiao, Chien-Te Ho, Hsu Tzyy-Jer, You-Chia Chu, Wen-Jone Chen, Pao-Hsien Chu

Open access · diamondAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 27% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Ying-Chang TungDivision of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Chang Gung University College of Medicine, Taipei, Taiwan.ORCID 0000-0002-8557-1472
Chia-Pin LinDivision of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Chang Gung University College of Medicine, Taipei, Taiwan.ORCID 0000-0001-7959-7804
Fu-Chih HsiaoDivision of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Chang Gung University College of Medicine, Taipei, Taiwan.
Chien-Te HoDivision of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Chang Gung University College of Medicine, Taipei, Taiwan.
Hsu Tzyy-JerDivision of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Chang Gung University College of Medicine, Taipei, Taiwan.
You-Chia ChuDepartment of Computer Science, National Chiao-Tung University, Hsien-Chu, Taiwan.
Wen-Jone ChenDepartment of Emergency Medicine, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.
Pao-Hsien ChuDivision of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Chang Gung University College of Medicine, Taipei, Taiwan.ORCID 0000-0003-0361-6348
Chang Gung University · TWNational Taiwan University · TWNational Yang Ming Chiao Tung University · TW

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This retrospective multi-institutional database analysis aimed to evaluate the blood-pressure-lowering efficacy and clinical outcomes of a generic versus brand-name nifedipine for hypertension management. A total of 12 693 patients who were prescribed a generic or brand-name nifedipine between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2018, were identified from the Chang Gung Research Database of Chang Gung Memorial Hospitals, Taiwan. Among them, 2112 (21.4%) were prescribed generic nifedipine. After propensity score matching, both the generic and brand-name groups consisted of 2102 patients. At a mean follow-up of 3 years, the changes in office systolic (p for interaction = .791) and diastolic blood pressure (p for interaction = .689) did not differ significantly between the patients who received the generic and the brand-name nifedipine. There was no significant difference between the two study groups regarding the composite of all-cause mortality, acute myocardial infarction, stroke, coronary revascularization, or hospitalization for heart failure (hazard ratio 0.98, 95% confidence interval 0.85-1.13; p = .774). In conclusion, the generic nifedipine was comparable to its brand-name counterpart regarding office blood pressure reduction and the composite cardiovascular outcome for the treatment of patients with hypertension.

Indexed as

HypertensionNifedipineCohort StudiesDrugs, GenericHumansRetrospective StudiesDrugs, GenericNifedipineblood pressuregeneric drugnifedipineoutcome

Identifiers

PMID35384251
PMCPMC9106077
OpenAlexW4225771439

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.